Monrovia – Recent comments by Liberia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs about the establishment of war crimes court in the country hint at the sort of approach the Weah-led government is considering to deal with the situation.
News Analysis by Alpha Daffae Senkpeni / [email protected]
The government of George Manneh Weah has until July 2020 to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations, according to the United Nations. Ahead of that, Liberians – home and aboard – along with over 80 local and international groups, continue to push for the establishment of a criminal tribunal to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes.
President Weah and his government are obstinate and are ignoring these calls. But some observers insinuate that the writings on the wall speak volume: that the administration doesn’t have war crimes court on its docket; may be not for now.
This week, Minister Gbehzohngar Findley, the country’s top diplomat, told a morning show on Okay FM in Monrovia that a referendum is the most likely option to decide the establishment of any war crimes tribunal in the country.
Said Findley: “I understand that there are Liberians who want the war crimes court but also what are the results from the majority of the people of the country? Do we go to a referendum for this? Let’s go to a referendum. If people are not happy then let’s advocate for a referendum for the Liberian people to decide the way forward on this matter.”
The former Senator is the legitimate face of Liberia within the international community. He would have to put up with pressure from his international counterparts about the government’s stance on the implementation of the TRC recommendations, which have been kept under the carpet since it was released in 2010.
Findley’s comment comes in disguise. And some say it appears to be the official stance of the government on this lurking issue.
While speaking at the UNGA, President Weah described Liberia as a UN “peace-keeping success story” but played-down calls from protesting Liberians for the establishment of war crimes court. Instead, he opted to pitch “national dialogue” as a remedy to the atrocities and deaths of approximately 250,000 people slain during the course of two back-to-back civil crises.
Said Pres Weah: “Our people across the country still bear the scars of conflict, we therefore intend to initiate series of national peace dialogues. Throughout Liberia, we must restart those difficult conversations at the local level and include our youths so that they and we do not repeat the costly mistakes of the past. It is clear to me that these frank exchanges are an initial step in bringing lasting healing, reconciliation and unity to our people.”
In the eye of the global body, it was a speech intended to emphasize the agenda of the Liberian government. But it also exposed the Liberian leader’s inconsistent posture about prosecuting perpetrators of war crimes.
Weah, as an ambassador of the UN Children Fund during the war days in Liberia, heralded campaigns to bring to book war criminals.
Now as President and having made strange political bedfellows in the months preceding the 2017 presidential elections, he appears apathetic. And his inaction has been re-echoed by many of his political allies – the latest being his Foreign Minister.
Findley was a Senator of Grand Bassa County when the TRC report was released. But when he wore a ‘political hat” this week to respond to a question about the setting up of a war crimes court in the country, his replied showed no semblance of a diplomat – a trade, many say, he’s still struggling to master.
“We as the legislature agreed at the time to take that report back to our constituency and do consultations before we took the decision on it,” he recalled, disclosing that out of 36 town hall meetings held in Grand Bassa County, only four people showed interest in the establishment of war tribunal.
Like many arguing against the establishment of war crime court, Findley is bent on substituting justice and is afraid about counting the cost.
And he uses Sierra Leone as a case study: “Billions of dollars has been spent on the War Crimes Court in Sierra Leone, where are the victims? You spent a billion dollar but look at the victims – look at the lives of the victims, you have not impacted the lives of them yet you have been able to address justice.”
Findley’s definition of justice: that it equals economic potency and access to social amenities. It’s a concept many advocates have slammed.
Advocates pushing for the establishment of war crimes court in the country warn that any attempt by the government to use the holding of referendum as a means of determining the establishment of war crimes court would violate international human rights principles and consequently turn the international community against the country.
“That’s not the way to proceed and if they proceed that way it will undermine Liberia’s international human rights obligations; and it will give the government a wrong image – very ugly image,” says Adama Dempster, Secretary General Civil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform.
“Government in government out, we signed several international human rights treaties and those treaties have been rectified like the treaty that has to do with the international covenant on civil and political rights signed in 2004.”
Dempster and several other advocates are aware of the ramifications when a country heavily reliant on support from the international community attempts turning a blind eye on treaties. This could trigger possible sanctions and isolation.
“It will not be a good image for Liberia, the country will have to forfeit lot of international opportunities and international donor support in lot of ways,” he said. “The country may even be denied participation in some international affairs that may be beneficiary to your country and they also have the way of bringing sanction on the country,” he added.
The pressure from the civil society doesn’t seem to be lessening despite suspicions that the government is making a move to paddle a new narrative about war crimes court in the country.
Meanwhile, Minster Findley’s comments have sent a signal to many Liberians seeking justice. Some see it as a pseudo-policy that would eventually become a master plan for the government – the kind that may set the divide and stimulate mixed views influenced by political opinions akin to electioneering frenzy.
“We also know the writing on the wall – the way in which this government wants to proceed with this issue of accountability and war crimes, so we are not going to allow them to be in their comfort zone to determine and decide how it’s going to be,” Dempster said.
Hassan Bility, Director of Global Justice and Research Project, argues that
“War crimes are international crimes” that cannot be decided by referendum, which basically focuses on issues of domestic concern.
“So, let the Minister of Foreign Affairs understands that the issue of referendum is not applicable to international violations,” Bility said.
Legal experts weighing-in on the Minister’s comments contend that the establishment of all special courts in a country was not decided by referendum.
“We did not go to referendum to establish the Criminal Court E that is prosecuting sexual gender-based violence case – we have a lot of courts that did not go through referendum for them to be established. So why will we now come to say violations of human rights – violations that have no statue of limitations should be decided by a referendum,” one lawyer, who asked for anonymity said.
“So you mean, people who are victims of war crimes would have to be sitting on the bench to allow people to go to referendum and determine their fate?”